Thatikonda China Rajaiah vs State of A.P.

Radhakrishna Rao, J.—This appeal is preferred by A.1 in S.C.No.181 of 1989, on the file of the ''Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, against his conviction and sentence. After trial, A-1 was convicted for the offence u/s 498A I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.1 for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. A-2 ''was acquitted. A.1 was also charged for the offence u/s 302 I.P.C, but he was acquitted of the charge.

The prosecution case is that the deceased (wife of A.1) was harassed during her lifetime after marriage and A.1 developed the idea of getting rid of deceased and to marry the daughter of P.W.10. Due to this reason A.1 caused the murder of his wife. With regard to the cause of death. A.1 got benefit of doubt for the offence u/s 302 I.P.C.

The deceased is a young lady and she was not ailing with any serious disease, which made her to commit suicide. P.W.2, the elder sister of the deceased, deposed that the deceased was complaining to her that she was being harassed by A.1 whenever P.W.2 went to her house or whenever she came to her house. P.W.2 also stated that the deceased told her that A.1 was ill-treating her on the ground that she was dark in complxion and he wants to marry another woman. Even a day prior to the death of the deceased P.W.2 went to her house and deceased told her that A.1 was harassing her. On that day there was some quarrel between A-1 and deceased and when P.W.2 enquired the mother of A-1 about it, she told her that he was ill-treating deceased and wants to marry another girl. Next day morning P.W.2 and the mother of A-1 brought two elders for mediation and they chastised A-1. The evidence of P.W.2 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.4. Nothing has been elicited from the evidence of P.W.4 to point out that he is inimical towards the accused and that no panchayat took place on the day alleged to have been stated by P.W.2. P.W.4 is closely related to A.1. When there was a quarrel with regard to proposed second marriage and some mediation took place, it is a strong circumstance for the wife to commit suicide and also for the person who wanted to marry again to do away with the wife. In either case the possibility of doing away with the life of the deceased cannot be ruled out. When there are two possible views one u/s 302 I.P.C. and another u/s 498A IPC it is desirable to prefer the view for which lesser punishment can be awarded. P.W.10 stated in his evidence that he informed A-1 that only after the production of document of divorce only he shall consider about the marriage of his daughter with A-1. Therefore it is clear that A-1 wanted to marry second time. In these circumstances this court feels that the conviction of A-1 u/s 498A I.P.C. passed by the lower Court is correct. The conviction of A-1 u/s 498A I.P.C. is confirmed. However, the sentence of imprisonment imposed against him is reduced to one R.1. while retaining in tact the fine amount.

The appeal is dismissed with the above modification in the sentence.